Replies

But to say you don't want America AS SHE IS TODAY, RIGHT NOW, and that you are willing to see her turned over to communists for destruction

I think you have ventured into the land of hyperbole now. The debate is about those who have created the wreckage we are now trying to fix and those who have a reasonable chance of fixing it or making it worse. There is no credible difference between John McCain and the two RATS available.

You could make a very strong argument that our failure to secure our own borders (McCain/Bush/Kennedy/Clinton/Obama) and our over-extension in a war with very foggy objectives is making us more vulnerable than anything else we could have done, and that McCain's gung-ho "nation building" will cause us even more grief. You can't win a war without defining our enemies and if you can't bring yourself to say Islam is the enemy than we have no business sending boys into harm's way. If we declared Iraq the 51st state, opened up the oil to Western bidding, declared a homestead act, and sent over missionaries, I don't mind a war in the middle east. But tinkering for global/corporate advantage with American lives and treasure is a neo-Con wet dream. I don't care if it's Hillary or McCain pursuing a losing strategy; I don't want to vote for a loser, and if you feel good about voting for a guy who seems to have active hatred for our constitutional rights, go ahead, but don't tell me it's an honorable compromise. It's not.